Does the human brain generate a quantifiable electric field?
Also what is current neuroscience work, in terms of reading the noise in our brains? It's not a lot and I imagine that you'd have to be very precise to be able to take advantage of that for whaever reason, perhaps in prosthetics.
Prefer this thread stay close to reality if possible. Speculation is fine, but I just don't want another thread to derail into the paranormal.
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
en.wikipedia.org
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
nature.com
nature.com
twitter.com
Yes but society will lose productivity if we could do things like think awake
It's playing God and toying with our very beings. We are our brains.
>Does the human brain generate a quantifiable electric field?
By separating oppositely charged ionic particles via the use of molecular pumps and then opening the channels between these two groups so that a current is produced
Uh English please?
Also i forgot to say image related
Nazis experimented with LSD and brains. Closest thing we got but point remains
the human brain is like a processing chip it just takes in and processes and sends out information to the other parts of the body including the body and the memory and the sense of the human
>Nazis experimented with LSD and brains. Closest thing we got but point remains
There's not a single nazi in that photo.
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.
Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D
>Does the human brain generate a quantifiable electric field?
Yeah, it's measurable from inside the skull (local field potential) and outside as well (EEG).
>reading the noise in our brains
This is still an emerging field, as neural noise is somewhat of an ambiguous concept. Much of neural processing that was considered to be noise was later discovered to be relevant for some function or another (e.g. through stochastic resonance or probabilistic population coding etc).
Here's a good review if you're interested:
nature.com
>using the righteous holy Pasta in a decent thread
user no
Goodness you've got the wrong post there. At least cut off parts of the pasta that doesn't fit the OP post.
en.wikipedia.org
This is probably the most based form of therapy that will come about in 100 years.
>Neurofeedback
Probably the most over-hyped technique out there. Just so you know.
You don't see the potential? Or do you dismiss anything that's over-hyped? It's not at the point where it deserves the hype, but it deserves the recognition. It'll improve.
I do see the potential, but the problem is that it just doesn't seem to work very well at all. I'm saying that out of experience, I conducted a few experiments with it during my PhD. At some point I went to straight replication studies because nothing seemed to be working, and even those replication studies failed. I bundled them all up in one manuscript but could not get it published anywhere because no journal likes null-effect papers. This field hugely suffers from a file drawer problem.
>quantifiable
Everything is quantifiable with enough data and maths.
bump
>Nazis
>posts Soviets
Toвapищ…
we got it working in my lab
its a pain in the ass with some methods though and its pretty much as you've described
ever had any difficulty replicating basic stuff like hand clenching motion with eeg tho?
This. One day we may see a successful user interface that you can control with your mind, but as of now you'd have to be a Buddhist with the calmest mind on the planet if you want to move a cursor 2 inches to the right with current technology. Not very efficient.
I imagine there'd still be some calibration in the future, but that it wouldn't be extensive. Then again maybe the thought problems of the general populace will prevent us from reaching that point beyond just military and scientific use.
You people really seem to have no idea what 'quantification' actually is.
>what is current neuroscience work?
record
"smooth" everything to point of being irrelevant
apply FFT
make 2d plot
think of new buzzwords
publish
collect your grant money
i mean fuck if EEs would turn down everything above 40Khz as "noise" we wouldn't be on this board right now.
Neuroscience and "computational" neuroscience is a fucking joke.
>Offers literally nothing to validate this claim
So how is it not quantifiable? Not that I should have to ask, but since saying "you're wrong" without explanation is the current trend I must ask his question.
>Neuroscience and "computational" neuroscience is a fucking joke.
Oh, and the best proof for this is that bands are called waves and everything tries to sound scientific when nobody actually tries to apply scientific method
Seems you are the joke. ERP components are real, replicable, and highly informative for well defined hypotheses.
>ERP
weird buzzword name for Field Effect
Till 70s most biologists were unable to electron microscope properly
>So how is it not quantifiable?
Never said it wasn't, in fact it's very easy to do so. I'm just pointing out that it's trivial that it's quantifiable. Quantification is simply turning a construct into a numerical unit of measurement. Which you could have easily figured out yourself if you had simply googled the term. Shit like:
>Everything is quantifiable with enough data and maths
really shows no understanding of the term.
Wow you sound like some bitter asshole that works in some useless no funding field. There is a lot of cool stuff going on in neuroscience right now, feature detection sure is a bitch in that field but what did you expect from the human brain? There's some pretty funny things in the field too like how they're using neural networks for emotion detection.
>There is a lot of cool stuff going on in neuroscience right now
like what? i'm genuinely curious.
>feature detection sure is a bitch in that field but what did you expect from the human brain
it looks like you just don't try hard enough
>like what? i'm genuinely curious.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I figured I might jump in here and give you some examples from my own field: the neuroscience of decision making.
Modeling has come a long way from spike-and-integrate models. Biophysical models that describe the formation of decision parameters as accumulating reverberations are becoming increasingly more refined and biophysically realistic:
>sciencedirect.com
They can reproduce attractor-like dynamics as observed in intracranial recordings from Monkeys:
>sciencedirect.com
Moreover, the existence of 'descision signals' that have been hypothesized based on these models were discovered in Monkeys:
>nature.com
And very recently have started to be uncovered in humans:
>nature.com
We are coming closer to being able to predict categorical choices based on simple surface EEG measurements, at the single trial level. The theoretical backdrop of the neural mechanisms at play in decision making has developed hugely in the last 10 years.
Those are some cool papers
>Does the human brain generate a quantifiable electric field?
Yes, but it's very small. To get any detail whatsoever, you have to put electrodes right on the head, and detecting it from a distance is nigh-impossible.
>Also what is current neuroscience work, in terms of reading the noise in our brains? It's not a lot and I imagine that you'd have to be very precise to be able to take advantage of that for whaever reason, perhaps in prosthetics.
Electroencephalography has been a thing since the late 1800s and involves precisely this. Electrodes are placed on the scalp to measure the electric field coming from that part of the brain. While they have very good temporal response, they're *extremely* low-resolution and can only read surface activity, and so most attempts to actually "read" the brain use functional magnetic resonance imaging instead. (This uses extremely strong magnetic fields to get an image of the blood flow throughout the brain; the amount of blood flow in an area is assumed to correspond to how active that part of the brain is. Poor temporal response and requires the patient to sit in a big noisy MRI machine, but it gets *very* good resolution.)
You can still get some information out of EEG, but it's very limited, and because it relies on large-scale patterns of brain activity requires quite a bit of effort to consciously control. Prosthetics rely instead on electromyography, placing electrodes on muscles the patient can consciously control to read their activity and control the prosthetic instead.
>You people really seem to have no idea what 'quantification' actually is.
A better question I should've asked would've been: What makes you think they have no idea what 'quantification' means?
The posts quoted:
>OP
Which is just asking if it's quantifiable. Probably doesn't know what it means. Not a big deal.
>Everything is quantifiable without data and maths.
What isn't? I'm not taking this post too literally, by the way, so maybe that's something to note.
And the third one is just quoting a post that's speculative about what the future holds, which isn't a good post to quote and then say "this guy doesn't know what quantification means". It's related to the thread but wasn't a post about quantification.
I mean I just have to know.
>A better question I should've asked would've been: What makes you think they have no idea what 'quantification' means?
That is a fair question. I'm going to skip the OP because I think we are in agreement there.
>Everything is quantifiable with enough data and maths.
The word 'enough' implies that one needs a large - or at least relatively large - amount of data to be able to quantify something. This poster is conflating the ability to arrive at statistically robust conclusion about the latent processes that the quantified unit is supposed to capture, and the process of quantification itself. These are two orthogonal concepts. Moreover, one in principle does not need math for quantification, as is evident from the definition of the term. If I want to quantify 'tallness' in Pygmy people, I simply use a tape measurement and note down how tall they are in centimeters or inches or whatever unit of measurement you prefer.
The third post refers to the second, and then strongly agrees by saying:
>This.
The rest of that third post is irrelevant to the point I wanted to make.
Troll harder faggot.